Isn't your opposition to effective altruism a Drunk Mormon Hypothesis? The implication seems to be that EAs unintentionally cause harm that outweighs the good.
I don’t claim EAs do more harm than good. Rather, I claim that they work hard to do good within an imperfect moral framework, a framework that encourages them to assert strong influence over the whole world and therefore opens them up to close scrutiny.
I see, I got the impression it was intended as a stronger criticism. Phrased that way, it seems pretty banal? Every political movement is trying to assert strong influence over the world. Many religions have an explicit goal of converting as many people as possible.
Well, no, a lot of political movements are trying to exert strong local influence and don’t much care what happens in the rest of the world. That’s one of the core distinguishing features of EA. I don’t disagree that it’s similar in that regard to the religions that have the explicit goal of converting as many people as possible—but that puts it in a specific, limited subset of movements: not inherently bad, but demanding a response. In particular, as it is the default moral framework among people who think like me, I have strong reason to examine and explain why I depart from it.
This is a very good article, and it's a shame it has so little attention compared to some of your later posts.
It articulates very well the way I feel when Scott Alexander says thinks like Trump is bad for Trumpism https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/12/13/trump-a-setback-for-trumpism/ - sure, maybe it's true, or more true for Trump than many politicians, but is Trump *trying* to be bad for Trumpism? Doesn't it seem more likely that being in office surrounded by a hostile media means everything you do will be spun against you?
The link to the study didn’t work, but a simple google search turns up the issue with why the study is correct. While religion has a positive impact on individual marriages staying together, the conditions in which you get more religious conservatives (poorer, worse education, more traditional family expectations) result in more early marriages among people who are less likely to stay together, more than offsetting the benefits of the religion.
Updated link. That's certainly what the study wants people to conclude from its abstract, but at least in its case (I don't know whether you found something else), it's doing this by dividing people into three groups ("conservative Protestant," other religions, and unaffiliated) and then comparing "conservative Protestant" to other religions rather than to unaffiliated people. The details of the study don't particularly support the abstract. It is a fundamentally dishonest approach and you will misinform yourself by taking it at face value.
I would assume that religion is more a support group for people with certain needs than it is an ideas transmission device. I presume people select into religion based on its functional utility and non-church goers are different from church goers in ways apart from going to church. My guess is the people that don't need church are less likely to go. I wouldn't be surprised if more AA attendees get black out drunk in a week than non AA attendees, but that is obviously selection bias, not treatment effect since problem drinkers are the ones attending them.
https://twitter.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1711050089282621789
Isn't your opposition to effective altruism a Drunk Mormon Hypothesis? The implication seems to be that EAs unintentionally cause harm that outweighs the good.
I don’t claim EAs do more harm than good. Rather, I claim that they work hard to do good within an imperfect moral framework, a framework that encourages them to assert strong influence over the whole world and therefore opens them up to close scrutiny.
I see, I got the impression it was intended as a stronger criticism. Phrased that way, it seems pretty banal? Every political movement is trying to assert strong influence over the world. Many religions have an explicit goal of converting as many people as possible.
Well, no, a lot of political movements are trying to exert strong local influence and don’t much care what happens in the rest of the world. That’s one of the core distinguishing features of EA. I don’t disagree that it’s similar in that regard to the religions that have the explicit goal of converting as many people as possible—but that puts it in a specific, limited subset of movements: not inherently bad, but demanding a response. In particular, as it is the default moral framework among people who think like me, I have strong reason to examine and explain why I depart from it.
Bro you are on fire. You're like the MacGyver of Jesse Singals.
I always look forward to reading your observations.
This is a very good article, and it's a shame it has so little attention compared to some of your later posts.
It articulates very well the way I feel when Scott Alexander says thinks like Trump is bad for Trumpism https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/12/13/trump-a-setback-for-trumpism/ - sure, maybe it's true, or more true for Trump than many politicians, but is Trump *trying* to be bad for Trumpism? Doesn't it seem more likely that being in office surrounded by a hostile media means everything you do will be spun against you?
The link to the study didn’t work, but a simple google search turns up the issue with why the study is correct. While religion has a positive impact on individual marriages staying together, the conditions in which you get more religious conservatives (poorer, worse education, more traditional family expectations) result in more early marriages among people who are less likely to stay together, more than offsetting the benefits of the religion.
Updated link. That's certainly what the study wants people to conclude from its abstract, but at least in its case (I don't know whether you found something else), it's doing this by dividing people into three groups ("conservative Protestant," other religions, and unaffiliated) and then comparing "conservative Protestant" to other religions rather than to unaffiliated people. The details of the study don't particularly support the abstract. It is a fundamentally dishonest approach and you will misinform yourself by taking it at face value.
I would assume that religion is more a support group for people with certain needs than it is an ideas transmission device. I presume people select into religion based on its functional utility and non-church goers are different from church goers in ways apart from going to church. My guess is the people that don't need church are less likely to go. I wouldn't be surprised if more AA attendees get black out drunk in a week than non AA attendees, but that is obviously selection bias, not treatment effect since problem drinkers are the ones attending them.
https://pics.me.me/angery-34572520.png
Link is dead now unfortunately